IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C

VISITOR EXPERIENCE/INTERPRETATION/EDUCATION

This alternative would provide visitors with the most comprehensive interpretation
of the lower Mississippi Delta regionís history. The seven cultural heritage
centers would present visitors a clear and unified interpretation of the regionís
varied stories and resources, from prehistory to the present, and would provide
visitors the opportunity to understand and appreciate interrelationships between
the regionís history and its resources, in a way unparalleled in the other alternatives.
In addition, the information and orientation services at the cultural heritage
centers would also help visitors know where and how to experience the various
story elements of the lower Mississippi Delta region, for example by providing
the opportunity to compare resources within different communities. The interrelated
interpretation and educational opportunities provided would both increase and
enhance the variety and quality of experiences available to visitors throughout
the region.

Local residents would be able to take advantage of interpretive and educational
programs offered at the heritage centers. There would be increased opportunities
for community outreach programs involving the lower Delta regionís cultural,
natural, and scenic resources. Increased appreciation for these resources could
help ensure their long-term preservation.

RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP

Cultural Resources

The seven proposed heritage centers would be located in adaptively rehabilitated
historic structures, if possible. Though the overall impact of adaptive reuse
would be the continued preservation of the structures, the use of any historic
structure could result in the loss of historic fabric that is too deteriorated
to be rescued and that must be replaced to preserve the structure or to allow
the structure to serve a public function. Materials that were removed, however,
would be evaluated to determine their value for either museum collections or
for their comparative use in future preservation work. In addition, a focused
program of research and maintenance would not only continue to preserve these
historic properties but also would contribute to and help perpetuate the historic
character of surrounding landscapes. Should circumstances dictate that any or
all of the heritage centers occupy new buildings, however, the heritage centers,
and their associated parking areas, waysides, and access roads, would be appropriately
sited and designed to minimize impacts to cultural resources.

The responsibility for preserving many of the Delta regionís cultural resources
would primarily lie with the newly created Lower Mississippi Delta Heritage
Commission and local governments, organizations, and citizens. Preservation
efforts could continue to he fragmented and uncoordinated, due to limited technical
assistance and inadequate funding; however, the numerous cultural resource studies
proposed, if implemented, would provide the information necessary to better
manage and protect the resources and to properly evaluate impacts of proposed
actions in future environmental analyses. All cultural resource studies would
be conducted in association with the appropriate state historic preservation
offices and other interested state, local, and private agencies and organizations,
and in cooperation with appropriate landowners and residents.

Another potential benefit of the proposed cultural resource studies includes
continuing ongoing consultations with Native American Indians and other ethnographic
groups, which could identify strategies for preserving and safeguarding cultural
significant sites and resources. Efforts could be undertaken to identify and
document oral traditions, lifeways, genealogies, and the complex interracial
and intercultural relationships of the regionís peoples, which are of ongoing
significance to contemporary racial and ethnic groups throughout the United
States.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Additional benefits could also accrue to those cultural resources that currently
have no preservation efforts underway. The burgeoning information available
regarding the lower Delta regionís varied cultural resources could result not
only in increased visitation but also increased public awareness and appreciation
of the resources, resulting in the encouragement of preservation efforts and
possibly additional revenue for resource preservation. Higher levels of visitation,
though, could result in increased incidences of vandalism, more wear and tear
on historic structures, or the overuse of adjacent grounds and landscapes, which
could necessitate increased management of the visitor experience. The potential
risk, however, is far outweighed by the potential benefits of preserving neglected
and deteriorating resources.

Natural Resources

The seven proposed heritage centers would be located in existing structures,
if possible. In most situations, the rehabilitation of historic structures would
primarily affect disturbed vegetation types and habitats. Should circumstances
dictate that the any or all of the heritage centers occupy new buildings, however,
the heritage centers, and their associated parking areas, waysides, access roads,
and signs would be appropriately sited and designed to minimize impacts to natural
resources. If possible, for example, the heritage centers would be erected on
previously disturbed lands, so as not to adversely impact biological diversity,
wetlands, or floodplains. Should construction occur in the vicinity of streams
and rivers, all activities would be conducted in strict compliance with state
and federal regulations and standards, which would minimize both the sediment
loads and vehicle related pollutants introduced into waterways. In addition,
both the development of management plans and careful operation of the facilities
would ensure that visitation is adequately managed without degradation of nearby
natural resources.

A temporary degradation of air quality from increased vehicle emissions and
an increase in noise would occur during construction, as a result of activities
to either rehabilitate existing buildings or build new facilities and develop
or improve parking and roads. Construction activities and increased vehicle
traffic on unpaved roads could also temporarily increase airborne dust and slightly
reduce visibility. Over the long term, pollutant concentrations from vehicle
emissions might escalate in communities because of increased visitation.

Beneficial impacts could accrue from the implementation of applicable sustainable
design practices, such as the proper disposal of onsite hazardous materials
and the use of nonhazardous materials in facility design and construction. Such
practices would not only provide for visitor and employee safety but could potentially
lead to the removal of contaminants in soils, the improvement of local surface
and groundwater quality, and the improvement of conditions for vegetation and
wildlife.

It is unknown how many resource sites associated with the lower Delta region
have the capacity to accommodate increased visitation without incurring resource
degradation. For example, nearby soils could be compacted and adjacent vegetation
destroyed by increased visitor use. However, any adverse resource impacts to
soils, vegetation, wildlife, and water and air quality would be minimal due
to the relatively limited extent of land potentially affected and because many
sites lie within existing disturbed areas.

Additional programs or measures to help protect or restore natural and scenic
resources on either private or public land could be developed in conjunction
with the cultural heritage centers. In addition, the beneficial impacts of implementing
this alternative would include some level of protection for those natural resources
that are associated with cultural resources proposed for preservation.

FACILITY DEVELOPMENT

The seven cultural heritage centers would contribute to their surrounding communities
both as an employer and as a consumer of goods and services. A staff would he
required to both operate and maintain the facilities. Construction and/or rehabilitation
of existing buildings and associated site improvements would require a contractor
with a large staff and crew. During construction, additional food service, housing,
and supplies would be necessary if the contractor is not from the local area.
If a local contractor is used, little new economic benefit would accrue beyond
the continued employment of existing workers during the construction period.

Increased visitation to the cultural heritage centers could create additional
automobile traffic on rural and urban roads and highways. Urban congestion,
remoteness, or the reliance on narrow, two-lane roads could make some centers
difficult to access. Ultimately, there could be a need to increase the capacity
of some roads, particularly in rural areas, to allow safe and efficient access
to the cultural heritage centers. Additional demands for municipal services,
such as road and street maintenance and law enforcement, could also occur in
some communities. If transpiration and other infrastructure improvements are
needed, however, local and state tax revenues from increased tourism could offset
a portion of the costs.

Increased tourism could generate increased income for local businesses and
could create a need for more overnight accommodations, restaurants, and other
commercial establishments in the communities surrounding the cultural heritage
centers, particularly if the centers are located in rural areas. Sensitive planning,
however, would ensure that the siting of these additional facilities does not
degrade the cultural, natural, or recreational resources that are integral to
the character of the lower Mississippi Delta region.

Residents in the vicinity of the cultural heritage centers might experience
some disruption to their daily lifestyles from the introduction of more visitors
to the area. In addition to increased traffic congestion, effects could include
the general invasion of privacy, increased noise, and potential trespass by
visitors. Such intrusions would likely be more noticeable if any of the centers
were located in rural areas, where noise and human activity would be typically
less. However, site planning and design that is sensitive to local lifestyle
and property owner issues would reduce the potential for major impacts to residents.

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The formalized management structure of the Delta Heritage Center Task Force
would tightly define each participantís responsibilities, making both the organization
of diverse groups of individuals and organizations and the coordination of projects
and initiatives for such a large and complex area more efficient. At the same
time, the potential for jurisdictional disputes would be minimized. In addition,
the task force, a new federal commission, could promote new federal expenditures
at a time when many established federal programs are under-funded. The task
force should also prove successful in driving economic revitalization, spurring
private investment, and generating community pride.

Like the partnership and commission described in alternatives A and B, respectively,
the task force would initiate grassroots support for heritage tourism and resource
preservation throughout the lower Delta region. Such constituency and consensus-building
would help ensure the long-term momentum of any proposed initiatives. The task
force would also allow for the more effective use of existing federal programs
by providing a focus for funneling money and energy that otherwise might be
dispersed in different, and perhaps contradictory, directions throughout the
region.

Federal funding to be made available for constructing each heritage center
would be $3 million ($21 million total). The staffing and maintenance costs
would be borne by each state.